Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Poole Corporation Bill [Lords],—(King's Consent signified),

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

Tramways Provisional Orders Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSSES).

Return ordered,
showing, separately, British merchant and fishing vessels captured or destroyed by the enemy; also British merchant vessels damaged or molested by the enemy, but not sunk, during the period 4th day of August, 1914, to 11th day of November, 1918; to show, as far as is known, name, gross tonnage, date, position, and method of attack, cause of loss or escape, and number of lives lost."— [Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne.]

NAVY LOSSES.

Return ordered,
showing the losses of ships of the Royal Navy during the period 4th day of August, 1914, to 11th day of November, 1918, distinguishing battleships, cruisers, light cruisers, torpedo gunboats, coast defence ships, monitors, sloops, river gunboats, flotilla leaders, torpedo-boat destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, coastal motor boats, armed merchant cruisers, minelayers, aircraft carriers, and armed boarding steamers: to show, as far as is known, name, class, displacement, date of launch, date of completion. and date, place, and method of loss:
And showing the losses of auxiliary ships of the Royal Navy during the period 4th day of August" 1914, to 11th day of November, 1918, distinguishing hospital ships, store carriers, minesweepers, auxiliary patrol paddlers, mine-carriers, fleet messengers, commissioned escort ships, miscellaneous craft, colliers, oilers, special service ships, tugs, yachts, and other auxiliary
craft; to show, as far as is known, name, class, gross tonnage, whether or not commissioned, and date, place, and method of loss."—[Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE STRIKE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he can give us any information as to what appears in the Press this morning regarding the police strike?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): It is quite true that there was what is known as an attempt at a lightning strike last night. The authorities were perfectly well aware of what was in the wind, and they made all their preparations accordingly. It did not turn out quite as we had anticipated, but very nearly. The result has been, so far as the Metropolitan Police area is concerned, that out of a number of 20,000 to 21,000 men, 546 have not turned up to duty. How many of these had a proper explanation we do not yet know. Some may have been ill and some may have not. However, 546 out of 21,000 from the Metropolitan area failed to report for duty. So far as the latest information from the provinces is concerned, the only place where more than one or two at the outside failed to report for duty-was Liverpool, and I understand that there, out of 1,700, about 300 failed to report. Everywhere else, so far as my latest information goes, the strike has completely failed. That is the position at present. Of course, with regard to the 546 absentees in the Metropolitan area, those of them who cannot give a proper explanation will cease at once to be policemen. With regard to Liverpool, I have told the Head Constable there that in any steps that he may consider it necessary to take I will give him my full support.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 546 men have been over a year in the service?

Mr. SHORTT: No; I cannot possibly say at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED.

WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL,— "to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder," presented by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL,—
"to remove the statutory limitation on the salaries of certain Ministers; to increase the number of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State capable of sitting and voting in the Commons House of Parliament, and to transfer the powers of the Secretary of Scotland to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State," presented by the PRIME MINISTER; supported by Mr. Bonar Law, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Attorney-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Provisions as to Police Pensions.)

At the end of paragraph eleven of the First Schedule to the Police Act, 1890, there shall be inserted the words "so, however, that the pension shall not be less than if the constable had continued in his former rank.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move
That the Clause be read a second time.
This is a small matter, but it provides for what may be a case of hardship. It deals with the case of a sergeant who may retire within the next two or three years, and who happens to have been promoted within three years of his retirement. In the case of a sergeant when he retires his pension is reckoned on the average of the three years before he retires, while in the case of a constable when he retires his pension is calculated upon the actual pay he was receiving when he retired. The result would be that if a man was promoted to sergeant to-day and he had to retire next year his pension would be reckoned upon his three years' pay, which would be two years at the old rate of pay as a constable and one year at the new rate of pay as a sergeant, and the average of that would be very much less than the constable would get who retires upon his full increased pay if this Bill passes. Therefore, we want to provide that if a constable is promoted in the immediate future and has to retire, say within a couple of years, he shall not lose, but he will get the full pay that he would have got if his pension had been reckoned upon his full pay instead of on the average for three years. This is a small matter, but it may meet a hardship.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Police Federation.)

(1) For the purpose of enabling the members of the police forces of England and Wales to consider and bring to the notice of the police authorities and the Secretary of State all the matters affecting their welfare and efficiency,
other than questions of discipline and promotion affecting individuals, there shall be established in accordance with the Schedule to this Act an organisation to be called the Police Federation, which shall act through local and central representative bodies as provided in that Schedule.

(2) The Police Federation and every branch thereof shall be entirely independent of and unassociated with any body or person outside the police service.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "other than questions of discipline and promotion affecting individuals."
We are quite conscious of the great benefit that this Bill proposes to confer upon the police, and before proceeding with the Amendment I should like to express my regret and the regret of the Labour party in this House at the ill-advised action of the police in connection with last night's strike. We regret it, especially at a moment when efforts are being made to increase the liberties of the force, and we consider that such action is entirely detrimental to their interests and reflects in a measure upon those who desire to further extend their liberties. We feel, in connection with the establishment of the Police Federation, that that institution will fail in its object unless the members of the federation have a fairly free opportunity of expressing their views and their wishes, and when you rule out at the beginning such matters as promotion and pay you practically remove the greatest interest in the men's lives so far as their service is concerned. The hope of reward is the one thing that appeals to every man, and, in the event of any dissatisfaction, surely it would be to the interests of the force and of all concerned that they should have an opportunity of expressing their views freely in this connection.
The Federation, so far as I have been able to gather, fails to find favour with the police. It is a sort of a three-storey institution. I really do not know which is the top storey and which is the bottom one, and whether the ground floor is the place that the men will aim at occupying or the top storey. But in any case, if you rule out questions of pay and promotion then this Federation will fail to deal with what must be one of the ruling objects of the men in the service. I see no reason why these subjects should be debarred. If injustice is done in connection with either pay or promotion, the men should have full freedom of expression for their views on the subject. I recognise that there must be certain restrictions in a force
constituted as the police are constituted, but there should not be these restrictions pertaining to items which are of the greatest possible interest to every man in the force.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not read the words of the Bill with that care which usually characterises him in this House. There is no question here as to pay. It is discipline and promotion that are mentioned, and, moreover, there is nothing in these words which will prevent any board or conference discussing questions of discipline and promotion. They can make any representations they like on these matters. It is only in the case of a single individual that the restriction is imposed. What it means is, that it is impossible, where there has been some disciplinary action, that the body should be allowed to deal with individual cases. As my hon. Friend says, there must be some restrictions in a body like this. But there is no intention to impose restrictions on the discussion of, or the power to make representations, concern-ins promotion or methods of promotion, or matters affecting the success of the men in their career. Practically, every objection which my hon. Friend has raised is one which does not exist in the words as they stand here. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. ROYCE: After that explanation, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The meaning of this Sub-section is that once the Police Federation set up by this Bill is established, it will not be able to associate with any other association, nor will any branch of the Federation be permitted to associate with any other body of persons outside. I suggest that this is too drastic and explosive a part of the Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is reasonable absolutely to isolate members of the police force from all other activities, and to declare that they, unlike all other wage-earners, must form one separate section and be totally denied all contact or association with their fellow
wage-earners in different trades and occupations. In face of what has occurred and what may occur, it is necessary to approach this subject in the broadest possible temper and the most reasonable frame or mind. The Home Secretary must now feel that while the police force is disposed to do its duty it is not disposed absolutely to submit to the law of force, as imposed upon it by this Bill. Something more than this repression will be necessary if the loyalty of the police force is to be assured and its good will in the public service is to be continued. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is taking too optimistic a view of the immediate prospects if he has revealed to us what is in his mind in his statement to-day. It is disquieting to see even the beginning of discontent in the police force revealed in this form. It will be a worse thing to provoke further discontent and acts of revolt by pursuing a course which is not consistent with the sense of liberty with which these men are supposed to serve.
As I understand, the police last year were assured in the words of the Prime Minister that they would not be interfered with in the exercise of their right to be in any association chosen by themselves. This Sub-section not merely denies them the right to be in any association, but even forces them by law to be in an association chosen by the Government. This Subsection says that that association must have no contact with any other association, organisation, or body of men of any kind outside the police force. I would even go so far as to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the surest way to secure peace and to enlist the highest degree of loyalty from the men in the force would be not to proceed with this Bill this afternoon, but to withdraw it and to take such steps as can be taken to try to settle matters by mediation, discussion, and negotiation, and by appealing to the men's sense of loyalty, and not by using this extreme instrument of oppression which is to be used to-day. We have previously in this House and in the Committee stage discussed many aspects of the Bill, and I will not go into these details now We on these benches are as anxious as any Members in this House can be to retain the loyalty of the police force, but I repeat my profound conviction that you can only have that loyalty in exchange for freedom and if you deny these men the right to associate themselves together in order to improve their position as wage-earners and
their personal condition in the service, you are placing them under a sense of injustice which will rankle and may grow worse, and I think that you will not have in future that trustworthy body of men which you have had in the public service in the past. This is not an opportune time for proceeding with a Bill so drastic as this, which proposes to force them into one association set up by the Government and which denies thorn the right to form themselves into a voluntary association, and which in any case prohibits them entirely from any association with any other body.

Mr. SHORTT: I appreciate to the full the desire of my right hon. Friend and those who act with him to secure a loyal and efficient force, but I cannot possibly agree with him either as to the best method by which that can be done or as to the necessity at this moment for any such negotiations or appeals as he has indicated. The information I gave to the House amply proves the complete loyalty of the police force. They are absolutely loyal, and they are a force of which this country, I think, may well be proud. As to the suggestion that this Bill should be withdrawn, I cannot imagine a more unfortunate time than the present in which to bring that proposal forward. I think nothing could have proved more conclusively than the events of last night the absolute necessity for this Bill. The question has been raised as to what this Bill provides. It does not provide to isolate the members of the police force from their neighbours or their neighbours' associations and institutions. It deals with the question of the federation as a federation. This particular Sub-section does not affect the liberty of the individual policeman in the slightest degree. His liberty is affected by Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes it unlawful for a member of a police force to be "a member of any trade union or of any association having for its objects, or one of its objects, to control or influence the pay, pensions, or conditions of service of any police force." We are told that this is far too drastic, that it is a measure of force imposed upon the police. In September of last year, when the police were in a very much more un restful condition than they are to-day, they came to an agreement as to what right they should have for joining any other body of persons. My right hon. Friend was incorrect in saying that the Prime Minister ever for one moment sug-
gested to them, or that they insisted, that they were to be entitled freely to join a trade union as a trade union. The terms upon which they joined it were signed by Mr. Marston himself on behalf of the police force, and they are these:
There can be no objection to a member of the police force joining the National Union of Police and Prison Officers so long as such union does not claim or attempt to interfere with the regulations and discipline of the service, or to induce members of the force to withhold their services, but that in the event of the breach of this condition— 
and if it was never broken before, it was certainly broken last night—
 members of the force may be called upon to sever their connection with such union.
Those were their own terms, the terms signed by Mr. Marston. Take the words of this Sub-section—
The Police Federation and every branch thereof shall be entirely independent of, and un-associated with, any body or person outside the police service.
What were the terms they agreed to in September? Here is one of the terms, again signed by Mr. Marston:
The organisation shall be entirely within the force, and shall be entirely independent of, and unassociated with, any outside body.
Those are the very words which are in this Bill, and they were accepted by the police last September, and signed as accepted by Mr. Marston himself. I think, in view of these facts, my right hon. Friend Is hardly justified in using the expression he has used with regard to this particular position. I appreciate his motive to the full. I can assure him that I am as anxious as he is that we should have a loyal and efficient force. I can assure him that I want, if possible, and so far as it is compatible with the discipline which is absolutely essential, the police to have as full and free power of expression, of recommendation and of discussion as it is possible to give them. I have made here an honest attempt to give that.

Mr. SEXTON: I want to join with my hon. Friend on the right in an expression of regret at the ill-advised action of last night. It places myself and my colleagues in a most difficult position in our attempts to modify the provisions of this Bill. I trust, however, that anything which happened last night will not be allowed to prejudice the merits of the case we seek to put forward. I am not concerned myself with what took place in September
last. What I am concerned with is the principle involved in this Sub-section, and that is that members of the police force are prohibited from joining any outside body. There are chief constables with varied minds. It is still open to a chief constable so minded to say that the policeman, who is invested with civil powers as far as his vote is concerned, shall not belong to any particular political body. That limitation is not placed on any other member of the Civil Service. I see no reason why a policeman should not be affiliated to a political body, and I see no reason why he should not present to that body in a purely constitutional manner any grievance he has got in order that legislation may be enacted for his benefit. Whether or not Mr. Marston or the Police Union signed the terms which have been referred to, the principle still remains, and it is still just possible, if I may reduce the argument to absurdity, that some fractious chief constable might object to a constable belonging to a Christmas goose club.

Mr. SHORTT: Not under this Bill.

Mr. SEXTON: He may object.

Mr. SHORTT: This does not affect the liberty of the individual policeman in the slightest degree. His liberty remains absolutely, except in so far as it is limited by Clause 2. This does not touch the liberty of the individual. He can belong to any body which does not affect the police.

Mr. CLYNES: Is it not the fact that he loses his individual liberty in this sense that he is deprived of acting in association with his fellow policemen.

Mr. SEXTON: Let me press my point which is that under the Federation to be established by the Bill the policemen would be prohibited from even discussing or putting before anybody other than the police force any question. They could not even come to the Labour party to state a grievance, although not affiliated to them, and to say that they wanted to move in a constitutional manner in order to secure benefits in the direction of pay or promotion, or for any other object, without any attempt to strike or threat to strike. This Bill denies them that opportunity and for that reason I shall vote against this Clause.

Colonel GREIG: I am in thorough sympathy, as I am sure every Member is, with
the position of the police, and with the desire to remove any grievances they may suffer from. I should be the last man to say any word out of sympathy with the police. From my experience of them during the War I believe they discharged their duty as well as any other body in. this country. I had many of them under my command, and they were eager to take up arms in defence of their country; and from the way they discharged their duties as civil officers I was satisfied that they would do their duty in the War, and they did. If I say anything now it is not out of sympathy with the police. What is their position. They are not in the position either of the ordinary citizen or of the ordinary Civil servant. Until we get home that root idea I am afraid hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite will not agree on the point. What is a police constable or policeman? He is an ordinary citizen who has confided to him by the rest of the community some of the most vital rights that affect the liberty of the individual. He has the right to interfere in crucial ways with the liberty of every one of us. That is a right which is confided to him by the rest of his fellow members, and it is a right which requires the utmost discretion in its exercise, and it is a right for the exercise of which he is responsible to his fellow citizens and not to any particular one of them. What does this Clause do? The first Clause of this Bill enables policemen of all ranks to form an association such as is set out in the Schedule of the Bill. That differs in no way from an ordinary trade union except this. Before the Trade Union Act of 1871 a trade union was an illegal association.

Mr. SEXTON: And it is yet.

Colonel GREIG: It is not. Trade unions have been recognised. They have to go to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to be registered.

Mr. SEXTON: Not necessarily; there is no penalty.

Colonel GREIG: Everyone knows that it may be an illegal association unless it does, and all the great trade unions, in order to put themselves in the same position as friendly societies, have to register. They put before the Registrar their objects, and the method of appointment of officers, and are subject to control in regard to funds.

Mr. SEXTON: My hon. Friend is entirely wrong in his knowledge of trade union procedure. Trade unions are not legally liable for benefits.

Colonel GREIG: A trade union is registered under a certain provision. This Bill gives the policeman a statutory union comparable in every way with the other unions, the only difference being that it is set up by this particular Statute. The essential difference between it and any other union is that while a trade union, registered or unregistered, can choose anybody to be a member or an officer in control of the union, that is a right, and the only right, of the ordinary citizen which the police-constable is deprived of by this Bill. What is set up is a federation, and policemen can use that federation as a means of communicating any complaints, but everybody in control of that federation must be one of themselves and must not be an outside person. That is quite right, because, to come back to the point I made originally, if we, the whole of the citizens of the community, entrust to a number of men the right to interfere with our liberty, those men are not merely acting as agents of the particular Government of the day, but are acting as the deputees of the whole of the community. We will not submit those rights to a particular section if we know that that section may be controlled by outside influences which are not responsible to the community. That is the whole point under which the police-constable is deprived of the general right. That is quite correct, and it is constitutional, and does him no harm. If that is what this Bill does, there can be no suggestion that the policeman is put in a worse position than anybody else. It is essential, if policemen are to be in a position to discharge their duties to the whole of the community, and it is only fair to the rest of the community that they shall not be subjected to outside influence or outside control by individuals who have no responsibility to the Government or to their fellow-citizens, and who will in moments of excitement do things which policemen themselves would regret. I hope the Government will resist the Amendment.

Mr. WATERSON: It is exceedingly strange that the Government should bring up this Bill at this particular time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] We are bound to treat the matter with a certain amount
of suspicion when we consider that the police have been in existence a good many years, and if all the good things foreshadowed by the Home Secretary are to be provided, it is strange that the Government should bring in this Bill, with all the unrest which is going on in the ranks of the policemen of this country. The hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to the question that this Bill enables these men to form an association, but when we come to examine what that association will really be, we venture to say that it will not give them that individual liberty and freedom which to-day is found in the ranks of what is commonly known as ordinary trade unionism. It was stated by the hon. Member that the control of this new Federation will be entirely by the men's representatives themselves, and that the men themselves can appoint and control their own officials, but that they must be members of the force. I ask the Home Secretary, and the hon. Member in particular, how it can be possible for any man of the force to be a general secretary of this union, at the same time carrying out his duties as an. ordinary constable or officer of the force? Any man who has a spark of knowledge of trade union work knows it is necessary for the secretary of a union to give the whole of his time, his power, and his ability to it, and not to be tied down by any other official body, in order that he may be able to do his duty to the men who belong to that particular union.
Besides, this is setting up an employers' trade union, nothing more nor less. I have been in my experience a representative of the men on what I could easily term an employers' friendly society, but although we had the majority of representatives on that committee, we were utterly useless, because the employers held the upper hand every time, and although their voting power on the management committee was in the minority, the conditions were framed in such a way that we were unable to get any advantage from the position we occupied as representatives, just as it would be in the case of this Federation. As the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Clynes) suggested, if we are to have a loyal force we should have within it the individual liberty which will give these men their rights as British citizens. Even if this Bill to-day may tide over the difficulty for the moment, I want the Home Secretary to think of what is going to
happen in the future. The age in which we live is not an antediluvian period, and people have not got the same ideas to-day as they had a good many years ago. They have greater aspirations, and the ex-Service men coming from the Army are not going to be treated in the same way as they have been treated hitherto, and these men, from whom the force largely recruits, arc not going to bind themselves under any military dictatorship, because that is what it amounts to. We should expect this Bill to come from the War Office rather than from the Home Secretary's Department, and I submit that it is no inducement for the rising generation to be recruited into the force. I want to draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that this principle is not being applied all round, but only to the policeman. If it is logical for one section of the Home Office to belong to a trade union simply brought in and probably managed by the Home Secretary's Department, is it not just as logical to say that the Home Secretary himself and others of the great legal profession should withdraw from their union and come within the scope of a Bill of this character? If it is good for the ordinary man at the bottom rung of the ladder, then the whole of the legal profession should withdraw from their union, and the same provisions should apply to them as are being made to apply to the police. What is the Home Secretary afraid of in this respect? If the men have a just case—and I consider that they have —there is no measure in this Bill that will prevent them from amalgamating their forces with the idea of getting better conditions. I hope the Home Secretary will view it from the point of view that it is no encouragement to young men to join the force, but rather is distasteful to the community, and I hope he will withdraw this Clause from the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: I think it is intelligible that the right hon.

Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) and the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), as trade unionists and men who have always fought for the full trade union principle, should oppose this Clause, but I am sure that if either of them was in the position of the Home Secretary at such a time as this, and quite independent of trade unionism, they would feel bound to support this principle, for I think they will see at once that it would be impossible for a federation such as is proposed in this Bill to become affiliated with any outside trade union, because what might happen would be this: They would be affiliated with some trade union, such as the transport workers, for example; there might be a big strike on, with rioting and disorder, and the police would be called out. It would be said, "They are affiliated to our union, and we cannot therefore do anything against them, although we believe they are in the wrong." I am sure all hon. Members will see that point of view. One hon. Member said he thought no policeman would ever be able to put his grievances before Members of the Labour party, but I should like to hear what the Home Secretary has to say on that point. The Federation as such cannot approach the Labour party, but I do not believe any individual policeman would be debarred from putting an individual grievance before a member of the Labour party or before the Labour party as a whole, and saying, "The members of the Federation feel such-and-such a thing very strongly, and I wish you would take it up in the House of Commons." [Mr. SHORTT indicated assent.] I believe that is right and just, and I am glad to see the Home Secretary assents. It does away with the feeling that the policemen have no opportunity of getting their grievances ventilated.

Question put, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 28..

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
12.54 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Courthope, Major George Loyd


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Breese, Major C. E.
Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry


Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)


Baird, John Lawrence
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Dockrell, Sir M.


Baldwin, Stanley
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Edge, Captain William


Barnston, Major Harry
Carille, Sir Edward Hildred
Falcon, Captain M.


Barrand, A. R.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Clyde, James Avon
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Cohen, Major J. B. B.
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Colfox, Major W. P.
Forestier-Walker, L.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Short), Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Glyn, Major R.
M'Guffin, Samuel
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Sugden, W. H.


Greig, Colonel James William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Griggs, Sir Peter
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Moles, Thomas
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)


Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon Hull)


Henderson, Major V. L.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Warner, sir T. Courtenay T.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
White, Col G. D. (Southport)


Hood, Joseph
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert w. H.
Whitla, Sir William


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Parker, James
Williams, A. (Conset, Durham)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hurst, Major G. B.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Jameson, Major J. G.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Winterton, Major Earl


Jessen, C.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Jodrell, N. P.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Johnstone, J.
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E


Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Seddon, J. A.
Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John



NOES.


Arnold, Sydney
Macveagh, Jeremiah
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Morris, Richard
Sitch, C. H.


Briant, F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Coins)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
O'Connor, T. P.
Waterson, A. E.


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
O'Grady, James
Wignall, James


Dawes, J. A.
Onions, Alfred
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Harbison, T. J. S.
Sexton, James
T. Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Hartshorn, V.
Shaw, Tom (Preston)



Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander




Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE. 2.—(Prohibition against Constables being Members of Trade Unions.)

(1) Subject as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for a member of a police force to become, or after the expiration of one month from the passing of this Act to be, a member of any trade union, or of any association having for its objects, or one of its objects, to control or influence the pay, pensions, or conditions of ser vice of any police force; and any member of a police force who contravenes this provision shall be disqualified for continuing to be a member of the force; and if any member of a police force continues to act as such after becoming so disqualified, he shall forfeit all pension rights and be disqualified for being thereafter employed in any police force:

Provided that where a man was a member of a trade union before becoming a constable he may, with the consent of the chief officer of police, continue to be a member of that union during the time of his service in the police force.

(2) If any question arises whether any trade union or association is a trade union or association to which this Section applies, the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move to leave out Clause 2.
I will give one or two reasons for taking this course. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend below the Gangway that, as trade unionists, we are now fight-
ing the trade union battle, but I suggest that we have had no choice of any other course. The line we are taking has been imposed upon us by the terms of this Bill. I have already said in Committee, and I think in the House, that, personally, I would have preferred to have seen the policemen organised on voluntary lines, in harmony with the desire of the Home Office, with freedom to protect themselves in the police service as regards remuneration and pensions, whilst securing the community against the risks of collective action in the form of indulging in a strike to the public detriment. I would have preferred that, but we have been forced by the terms of this Bill—indeed, we have had no choice—to put the trade union position in the manner we are endeavouring to do. The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Colonel Greig) gave to the House a too generous interpretation of the meaning of this Bill, whilst not giving to the House a quite accurate description of what the trade union position is. It is not enough to say that, under this Bill, policemen are allowed to form themselves into an association. They are made to do so. The Bill says they shall form themselves into branches of this Federation. It
is not a Bill of "may"; it is a Bill of ''must." They are compelled, then, to form themselves into an organisation imposed upon them by the Government. The Clause under consideration takes the House further, and asks it to say that, whilst the Government sets up a trade union of its own kind, it takes away from the men any right of voluntarily associating together in an organisation corresponding to a trade union.
I, therefore, move that this Clause be deleted, because I believe that the Federation, if the Government insists upon establishing it, can be brought into being and maintained consistently and con currently with an organisation formed by the policemen themselves on voluntary lines, and which would answer very largely to a trade union. Our view is that the Government ought not at one and the same time to force the men into a Federation and force them out of the union which they have recently established for their own protection. Some consideration must be given to the very natural desire of the policemen to exercise as employès rights similar to any working-men in this country. A policeman now is in this position: He is the embodiment of the law, and yet legally he is to be deprived of exercising the common rights enjoyed by the commonest man in the commonest industry. He is the symbol of our freedom, and yet he is denied the freedom to act in any way that his fellow-men can in other associations. I suggest that this Clause, if carried, will destroy completely any right of voluntary effort on the part of the policemen to form themselves together for any kind of protective purpose. If my right hon. Friend will forgive me saying so, I think it is rather trifling with the position when he points out that individually the freedom of the police is left unimpaired, and that they can do what they like.
Everyone knows that in practice that means that personal power is worthless. A man can secure the use of power only when he acts, and is permitted to act, in association with his fellows. As a single unit he has no means whatever of arranging a bargain with his employer, or superintendent, or the man who is in any way in authority above him. He is totally helpless, and that amount of individual freedom is not worth the words that cover it. The belief then of the Labour Members in regard to this Clause is that it can be with
drawn without destroying tie object which the Government has in view, and that if it were withdrawn it would go far to allay a good deal of the discontent which is now spreading. Finally, as to what the right hon. Gentleman said relating to Mr. Marston might be said months and months ago. That should be considered in the light that he was acting under a condition of pressure at the time. After all, Mr. Marston signed as an agent. It is not enough to say Mr. Marston has departed from his word. He is being driven from his words by the terms of this Clause. It is not consistent for the Government to make this charge against the Chairman of the Policemens' Union at a moment when they are making it totally impossible by the Clause in this Bill to conform to the agreement which he had to sign at that time.

Mr. SHORTT: If I gather aright what my right hon. Friend said just before he sat down, it is perfectly true that this Clause is intended to prevent policemen joining any outside body such as that to which Mr. Marston belongs. It is not right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Mr. Marston is driven by this Clause to break his word and the conditions ha made. He has broken them consistently from the moment he signed them. I should like to enter a protest against the suggestion that this Clause, or any single word of it, is an attack upon trade unionism. To speak of it as if it were such an attack is wrong. It is nothing of the sort. On the Second Reading, speech after speech was made from the opposite side of the House, in which it was admitted, and admitted freely, that policemen could not be as ordinary industrial trade unionists. To begin with, they could not have what is the very soul of industrial trade unionism, the right to strike. Industrial trade unionism must keep that. For the police to strike is absolutely impossible! We have had months of experience of allowing the police to belong to an outside body. It has had the fullest trial. This Clause merely prevents the police joining any outside body which seeks to interfere with them. They can belong to the Labour Party or Conservative or Liberal parties. They can join their associations. They can join any goose clubs, such as have been talked about, or any other club of a similar description. If once, however, these institutions attempt to interfere with the police, try to stir up unrest among them, and try to lure them
on to strike and that sort of thing, then their membership of that association must cease. That is a protection which is essential if the police force is to maintain its efficiency. This Clause goes no further than that, and I ask the House to stand by it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "trade union or association," and insert instead thereof the word "body."—[Mr. Shortt]

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "Secretary of State," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Minister of Labour."

Mr. RAWLINSON: We do not know what the Amendment really is, and perhaps the Home Secretary will explain it.

Mr. SHORTT: If the hon. and learned Member will look at Sub-section (2) of the Clause he will see the words
(2) If any question arises whether any trade union or association is a, trade union or association to which this Section applies, the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
I have accepted an Amendment making it determinable by the Minister of Labour, who is more closely in touch with the subject than the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(penalty on Persons Causing Disaffection, etc.)

If any person causes, or attempts to cause, or does any act calculated to cause disaffection amongst the members of any police force, or induces, or attempts to induce, or does any act calculated to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit breaches of discipline, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and in either case if a member of a police force shall forfeit all pension rights, and be disqualified for being a member of any police force.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move to leave out Clause 3.
I would like to appeal to the Home Secretary either to assent to modify its terms or to take it out of the Bill altogether. This Clause proposes very severe penalties to persons who cause disaffection, and it deals with attempts to cause disaffection or what may be calculated to cause it, or attempts to induce others to do certain
things. In the present temper of the country it is highly undesirable especially in a Bill which deprives a body of important public servants, as we believe, of individual freedom, to strengthen the law in respect of acts of prosecution against persons who may be innocently engaged in the trade union service. If a trade union agent from some public platform expressed the view that policemen were entitled to the same rights of organisation and ought to exercise them as other people, under this Clause he would be liable to prosecution and to the infliction of the very severe penalties which are mentioned in this Clause. This Clause may be regarded by organised trade unionists as a challenge, and if not that, certainly it will be considered as an attempt to greatly lessen. organised service not only in relation to policemen, but to many other public servants, and it will deprive a certain section, of men of their right to voluntary combination. I think the object of the Government can be met without stirring up the suspicion and dissatisfaction which is bound to arise under a Clause of this kind.

Mr. SHORTT: This Clause is in no sense a challenge to trade unionism, and in no sense will it reduce the power of trade unionism in so far as it is properly exercised. It does not deal with anyone who attempts to improve the position of the police or with anyone who seeks to improve their conditions, pay, pensions, or anything else, but it does aim at those who seek to deprive the public of that protection to their lives and their property which the police are pledged to give. We know that there are people in this country whose objects are not those of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but whose methods are of such a nature that it is essential for them to be able to have a disaffected police force that they can rely upon not to fail the country during some crisis. Therefore we must have this protection. The Bill does not touch trade unionism, and it does not prevent any individual doing anything which he can legitimately and properly do as a trade unionist, and trade unionists will not be affected. It is the agent of disaffection and of revolution and the agent of real mischief which is aimed at in this Clause, and I ask the House to retain it in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman did not say any-
thing about the Press. I would like to ask if newspapers will be prevented from commenting upon matters affecting the police.

Mr. SHORTT: No one would be touched who really points out grievances which ought to be remedied, but if the Press set themselves to incite the police to strike at a time when some strike was on, and they wanted the police to help them, of course they would come under this Bill.

Mr. WIGNALL: This Clause seems to me to be very far-reaching, and it possibly might be used in a way which was never intended. As I read the Clause, it might give people the opportunity to charge others who are only doing what they may think they have a legal and constitutional right to do, and it might place those people in a very unfair position. The police force is one of which we are all very proud, and we as trade unionists, with all our years of experience, can freely say that we have always found them doing their duty to protect property, and they have never assisted strikes or strikers, and from that standpoint we have nothing very much to talk about. The strike which has happened will undoubtedly be crushed, but it will leave behind it a sting in the hearts and the mass of the people affected by it, and it will mean that people who have a grievance may be victimised. A statement may be carried from one mouth to another until it reaches the proper person, and charges might be levelled even against myself or any other hon. Member of this House who have no desire to break the law. Therefore this. Clause ought to be withdrawn or amended in some way so as to modify it in order to safeguard innocent people from being penalised who have no desire to break the law.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: No one regrets more than I do that this Bill has been necessary, but I think we must all realise that the unfortunate conditions of the past few years brought about by the neglect of the Government during the War of the police force has brought about an unsatisfactory condition of things. The opinion which I believe every hon. Member of this House holds is that the police force should be put into such a position that under no circumstances whatever is it likely that they will be a fruitful ground for agitation of any kind. Their pay and their conditions should be good in every way, but we must always
remember that this particular force is entirely different from any other trade, organisation, or business in the country. They are there to keep the ring. It is possible that they may have to guard a trade union office to-morrow, or an employer's office. It does not matter. They have to do their duty to the State. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he has done for the police. We support him in the whole of this Bill, because we realise that for the good and safety of the nation the police must be guarded against people who go about making mischief in the force. It is a very dangerous thing for anyone to try and interfere with them in any way, and I do, therefore, hope that the Government will strongly support this Clause.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: This Clause imposes very heavy penalties for offences. I do not find fault with the period of imprisonment or the amount of the fine, but I do suggest that the last sentence in the Clause ought to be deleted. It means that a man when he has paid his fine and served his period of imprisonment may be further punished by loss of pension. That is very harsh punishment. He pays towards the fund from which the pension is drawn, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman should agree to the deletion of these words. A man who has been twenty years in the force may be convicted of some offence, and to say that he shall be fined and imprisoned and then forfeit his pension to which he has contributed, is carrying the thing a little too far. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the Amendment.

Dr. MURRAY: I would like to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend. I am not a lawyer, but I think the words "attempts to cause disaffection" are rather ambiguous. Almost any suggestion to the police in connection with their pay or conditions of service might possibly be construed by the legal mind to be something calculated to cause disaffection. Surely the phraseology is rather loose, at any rate it appears to be so to the lay mind. It may be that the word "disaffection" has a particular meaning in the law, but it certainly seems to leave people open to charges for offences with very little reason. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal and delete the
last words of the Clause. At any rate, it should be made optional to the judge to say whether a police constable who is overtaken in a fault of this sort should be deprived of his pension rights or become disqualified from being a member of the police force. It is really carrying the penalty too far. It should not be in the Bill at all, and in any case it should be left to the discretion of the judge who would be influenced by the particular circumstances of the case to say whether it should be inflicted or not.

Captain TUDOR-REES: I desire very respectfully to make a suggestion. There is a good deal in what has been said with regard to the possibility of a person offending against this Clause quite innocently, and every Member would desire to prevent that possibility. I am anxious to make it impossible for an innocent person to suffer by reason of the Clause, and I therefore respectfully suggest the introduction of the word "wilfully" so as to protect the innocent person. The Clause then would read "If any person wilfully—" That would satisfy me, and I think it would satisfy the objections which have been raised by some hon. Members.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I desire to support the Government in the general principle of this Bill, but I would certainly like to join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to modify the last words of the Clause. The other penalties, of course, are within the discretion of the judge, but as the Clause stands forfeiture of pension rights must take place in any event. I think that ought to be altered. There should be some discretion as to whether it has been a bad case or not.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: If a man is convicted, or is even suspected of being inclined to stir up dissatisfaction in the force, it is absolutely necessary that hr should be turned out of the force. Therefore, I do not see how you can take these words out of the Clause. I quite agree that there may be hard cases, and it may be. very difficult for the Home Secretary and the police authorities to say whether a man ought to be proceeded against or not. The moment there is any question of proceeding against him, however, he is a man who ought to be out of the force I hope, there-fore, that the Government will stick to these words. The word "wilfully" goes too far, because we know how difficult it is to prove whether a man has done a thing
intentionally or not, but whether the Home Secretary can modify the sentence is another thing. It is part of the essence of the Bill that the man should be turned out of the force, and I do not think that hon. Members who have suggested the omission of these words realise that fact.

Colonel GREIG: It seems to me the guarantee to the House that the Clause will be put into operation in a proper manner is contained in the words "on conviction he shall be liable." If the case comes before the stipendiary magistrate, or before the High Court then surely we can trust the judges or the magistrates to investigate the particular circumstances. We are sure that judges will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to cases of this kind. We are proud of the way which we can trust those who are charged with the administration of the law.

Mr. WIGNALL: We cannot always trust the magistrates.

Colonel GREIG: Of course we know that some magistrates may go wrong, but it is the exception and not the rule-I want the Committee to bear in mind that the offence we are here dealing with is a very grave one. I agree that the words at the end of the Clause are very severe, but what may be a very minor offence in a man outside the police force becomes very serious in the case of a man inside the force. The main thing is, I imagine, that the penalty to which the man may render himself liable will act as a deterrent. It would be a very bad thing indeed to leave discretion to the judge or to anybody else, because they might err on the side of sympathy. It is far better that Parliament should take upon itself the duty of laying down what shall be the punishment in cases of this nature, and we ought not even to leave it to the Secretary of State. We should ourselves declare what is the unavoidable penalty in cases where men commit these offences.

Mr. SEDDON: I am sure my hon. Friends opposite have not considered how far their proposal is taking them. It has been assumed by most of the speakers that for a very venial offence a policeman may be penalised by the loss of his pension. If that were a possibility, I am sure every Member of the House would support the appeal made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tyson Wilson). But, as a matter
of fact, as the last speaker well said, there can be no comparison between policemen and ordinary trade unionists. It has been argued as if the circumstances in the two cases were the same. But let it be borne in mind that no trade unionist has to take an oath of service to his employer, whereas a policeman does take an oath to the Crown that he will do certain things as a policeman. There are moral values involved in these conditions. If we are to agree that a man may break his sworn word with impunity, I would like to know where we shall find ourselves. I say that a man who does so must suffer a penalty commensurate with the crime committed, and that, at any rate, will act, as a deterrent to other people who may be tempted to follow his example. Therefore, while I believe that the men would get consideration from the permanent officials or from the Home Secretary, I think we must be careful where we are going, because if we are going to give a licence to a man to break his obligations, which surely have a moral value, we are going along the path which leads to chaos and disorder in the country.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree that this Clause is very severe, and that it is intended to have a wide application. The crime against which it is aimed is a far-reaching one. It is the offence of causing disaffection or doing things likely to cause disaffection, and it is quite right that the penalty in such a case should be severe. A policeman found guilty of the offence will, under the Clause, forfeit his pension and be prevented ever again becoming a policeman. I have stood up pretty often to protest against severe sentences in different Acts of Parliament, and I have not received very much backing, I am afraid, from Labour Members. But I say it is absolutely necessary to support the Government in carrying a strong Clause of this nature, and I will tell the House why it is so important. I have attended meetings time and again where it has been the declared object of the speakers to ruin England as a constitutional State. I have heard them say, "We don't mean to fight; we don't mean to go in front of the guns. We are not up against the policeman's baton, but we want to get round the loyalty of the Army and the police force, so that those men may fight on our side." I am sure no one has the slightest sympathy with or intention of supporting
men who advocate such doctrines. These are the men who have been sowing disaffection among the police and among the troops. The Home Office made a lamentable failure on the occasion of the last police strike. I am glad it is now showing some backbone, and I for one am prepared to support it whole-heartedly in carrying this Clause into the Act of Parliament.
What we are seeking to do is to protect the police force from outside interference, because we know that otherwise chaos and ruin will come upon us. We know what disorders occurred during the last strike, and it would be a wrong thing for us in any way to weaken this Clause. It would be very easy for an agitator to say, "I did not know when I was doing this thing that it would affect the police force, or that the leaflets which I was issuing would sow disaffection amongst the members of that force." We must prevent such things occurring. It is idle to suggest that we are denying policemen the common rights of citizenship. Men who take certain positions under a constitutional Government must always give up certain rights. It might easily be made a complaint that because Mr. Speaker holds his position he has to give up a right common to every Member of this House—the right of voting in Divisions. Officials of Government Departments, when they take certain positions, are called upon to surrender certain specific rights; and as to the suggestion of the hon. Member that if this Clause is persisted in it will deter men joining the police force in the future, because they will not agree to be subjected to this penalty, I can only say I do not believe it will deter a single man. I am sure that when a policeman joins the force and takes the oath of allegiance, he means to keep it. If he docs not, then the punishment ought to be severe. I have never before supported a penal Clause of this character, but I do-hope that the Government will press this, because it will keep people from interfering either with the police or with the Army. The members of the force will have the fullest protection under this Clause. They will be protected by the-magistrates.

Mr. WATERSON: They have not sufficient representation.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree. I might remind my hon. Friend that I was the means of having an Amendment made to a Bill which is now the law providing
that in every case of conviction by a magistrate there should be an appeal. In the Criminal Law Amendment Act there is an appeal to the High Court judges

Sir F. FLANNERY: The Clause deals with conviction on indictment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: And summary conviction as well. Once a man is convicted by a Court of first instance and on appeal for an offence so insidious and grave as this is, this penalty ought to be imposed, and I trust the House will show strength and support the Home Secretary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words
and in either case if a member of a police force shall forfeit all pension rights and be disqualified for being a member of any police force.
If these words be left in a man may be fined £l or £2 without any imprisonment at all, and he then forfeits all pension rights, and it is made imperative that he should be discharged from the force. That is where the harshness comes in. He may be convicted of an offence in one locality for which he would not be proceeded against in another locality. In that case, in one locality he would not be considered a fit and proper person to be in the force, whereas in the other he would be admitted to the force. These words impose a very severe penalty indeed. I hope that the Home Secretary, if he will not accept the Amendment, will consider the desirability of modifying these words in another place. I am certain he would not like a man to be fined £l for some offence under this Clause, arid, because of that, should forfeit all his pension rights to which he has contributed for fifteen or twenty years. Even at the eleventh hour I hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. If there is anything like a spontaneous strike after this Bill becomes law, it will be because the men in the force feel that an Injustice has been done to an individual member of the force and that, Act or no Act, they should take such action which they thought might influence the people responsible for the action taken.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with a good deal that has been said as to the necessity for keeping up discipline in the police force and punish-
ing severely any person who causes disaffection in it. Here, a policeman, who has been tried and summarily convicted, may be punished by a small fine, yet that has to be followed up by the forfeiture of all pension rights. That is carrying the punishment too far. In Scotland we say that when a man has the led his assize he must not be tried again. A man may be tried for a technical offence. The magistrate may impose a small fine or a short period of imprisonment. That carries with it the forfeiture of the pension. That carries an element of vindictiveness alien to all sense of justice. I agree that there should be the option to the judge to deprive a man of pension rights or to order that he shall no longer be a member of the force. I would ask the Home Secretary to leave it to the option of the judge to decide whether a man should be deprived of his pension rights or that he shall no longer be a member of the force. I recognise the difficulty of amending the Clause to provide for that, but I would join in the appeal that between this stage and the Bill being taken in another place the Home Secretary should consider whether he could not modify in some way or other the harshness of this part of the Clause.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. It may be possible for me, before the Bill actually receives the Royal Assent, to consider some proposal with regard to the pension. It is highly improbable that a member of the police force guilty of any of the crimes which are dealt with in this Clause would ever get off with a fine of £1 or a. short period of imprisonment. Some hon. Members appear to have forgotten the fact that a policeman who is charged under this Bill is, in fact, a traitor, nothing more nor less.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: A man who is charged under this Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course, I am talking of conviction.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You said "charged."

Mr. SHORTT: If I said "charged" it was a slip which I should have thought would have been apparent to anybody. A man who is convicted under this Clause is a traitor pure and simple. He is a man who, having taken an oath himself, tries to incite other people to break theirs. That he should possibly remain a
member of the force is out of the question. I cannot consider any Amendment of the words "disqualified for being a member of any police force," but with regard to the pension it might be met with some provision whereby the Secretary of State or the police authority or somebody else in special circumstances could decide it in a different way. Generally speaking, the principle ought to be that a man who has taken the oath and become a policeman and who is guilty of any of the charges which are made under this Clause ought to be very severely punished, far more severely punished than any ordinary member of the public. I hope the House will not accept the Amendment, but between now and a later stage of the Bill I will consider how far it is possible to make some provision for the less severe or grave cases not losing their pension rights. I cannot give any promise about it, but I will consider between now and a later period whether anything of that sort can be done.

Mr. R. M'LAREN: I would remind hon. Members that a Civil servant is also under disabilities. If he commits an offence such as a breach of the Official Secrete. Act he may not only be dismissed but also lose his pension. A Civil servant does not take the obligation of an oath in the same way as a policeman. It is a mistake to think that a policeman who commits a misdemeanour under the Bill should get off. A policeman is in a position different from any other individual, and while it is quite true that he loses certain rights, it is also a fact that Civil servants lose certain rights. A Civil servant is precluded entirely from taking any part in civil government. He can take no part in the work of county councils or town councils. To say that a policeman should have certain rights which a Civil servant has not got is going beyond the point. I trust under the circumstances the Government will stick to their measure, because there are men going about to-day who are doing their level best to cause dissatisfaction amongst the police force and the Army, and these are the very men who, during all the years we were at war, were not only unwilling to serve, but were doing all they could to bring about disaster to this country. I trust the Government will keep to the Bill and that the House will support the Government in making it as strong as possible, in order that this dissatisfaction may cease once and for all.

Mr. WILSON: I take it the right hon. Gentleman is, at present at any rate, inclined to put some such provision as this into the Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: I am considering it, at any rate. I think possibly it would be a wise thing to do.

Mr. WILSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will give it favourable consideration, I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Secretary of State to Regulate Pay, etc., of Police. Forces.)

(1) It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the government, pay, allowances, pensions, clothing, expenses and conditions of service of the members of all police forces within England and Wales, and every police authority shall comply with the regulations so made.

(2) A draft of any regulations proposed to be so made as aforesaid shall, except where the matter is certified by the Secretary of State to be one of urgency, be submitted to a council, consisting of the central committee or a deputation from the central committee of the Police Federation and representatives of the chief officers of police and police authorities selected for the purpose by the Secretary of State, and before making the regulations the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made by such council.

Mr. A. SHORT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "government" ["regulations as to the government "].
2.0 P.M.
It seems to me that the object of the first portion of the Clause is to secure some measure of standardisation of the rules and regulations appertaining to the police force. I can well see the desirability of such standardisation in so far as pay and allowances are concerned, but when we come to government, a very wide meaning can be attached to the word and a good deal of elasticity can be put into its interpretation. "Government" mean3 executive power. Hitherto, if I understand the matter aright, watch committees of local authorities have possessed certain powers in connection with the government of the local police force, and it appears to me that under this Clause, with the word "government," the Home Secretary is going to supersede entirely the watch committees. He is going to cut right across their work and is going to take out of their hands all opportunity of governing the local police forces. That is giving the Home Office too great power
in view of the excellent services which have been rendered by these watch committees.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. It really is just as important that you should standardise what government involves as that you should standardise conditions and pay. I have felt for some time that it would be wise if there were a disciplinary code amongst the police so that you would not get individual cases of harshness and so on as you do at present. Regulations would be necessary for that. The methods of promotion ought to be standardised. Promotion from one force to another, from a smaller to a larger force, could only be done by regulations from a central source. The inclusion of the word "government" does not in the least take the real executive power out of the hands of the watch committees or local authorities but merely gives power to make regulations in order to standardise the conditions. I could give many other instances, but I think it will be clear to hon. Members that this is not an Amendment that they would care to press. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
except where the matter is certified by the Secretary of State to be one of urgency.

Mr. SHORTT: I accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: I beg to move, after the word "submitted" ["be submitted to a council"], to insert the words "to the police authorities and."
My object in putting in these words is that the standing joint committee or the watch committee should have some say in the matter. Under this Clause it goes to a council which consists of members of the Police Federation, representatives of the chief officers of the police, and the police authorities, a sort of joint council who are to be consulted. But we claim that the county councils also ought to be consulted. They are the people who carry on the police. They are responsible and ought to be consulted before anything definite is done. They are quite prepared, after they
have been consultd, to join with anyone else to consider the matter, but they think the Home Secretary ought to consult them or, at any rate, let them know about it before any fresh regulations are submitted.

Major COLFOX: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member has a further Amendment on the Paper to insert in Sub-Section (2), after the word "State" ["Secretary of State"], the words "after consultation with the county councils' associations and the association of municipal corporations." I should be prepared to accept those words. The object is to have a body which is representative of the opinions of the Government and of the other authorities, such as the watch committees in the boroughs and the standing joint committees in the counties. If the associations have a voice in the choice of their representatives that would probably meet what my hon. Friend has in view. The Amendment which he has now proposed would be quite impossible, because it would mean that you would have to consult not one single body, representative of all the authorities, but each police authority all over the country, which would be a very heavy and cumbersome matter. If the words which I suggest, which are the hon. Member's own words, are inserted, they would meet all that he desires.

Sir J. REMNANT: The Home Secretary should have authority in cases of emergency to immediately put new Regulations into force. If he is going to attempt to have all these extra additional bodies consulted before he can meet a case of emergency, difficulties are certain to arise, and I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be firm when he is satisfied that the case is just he will be firm in resisting Amendments which are not necessary.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: I should be glad to accept the suggestion of the Home Secretary, although I would have preferred that he should have accepted this Amendment, because it gives me more of what I wanted. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. F0REST1ER-WALKER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "State" ["Secretary of State"], to insert the words
after consultation with the county councils' associations and the association of municipal corporations.
These bodies are representative of the watch committees and the standing joint committees, more or less.

Major COLFOX: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. REMNANT: I should like to know from the Secretary of State how long he imagines it is going to take, in the case of emergency, to consult all these extra outside bodies. How does he propose to deal with a case such as that which happened last night?

Mr. SHORTT: It is quite evident that my hon. Friend does not appreciate the meaning of this Amendment. A council will be set up and the council will always be there. It will be there to consult immediately in case of emergency. This Amendment simply deals with the original constitution of the council. It provides for consultation as the first step in choosing the representatives who will form the council. Once the representatives are chosen, there is no further consultation required of any sort or description. It is merely a question of consulting them once in order that they may choose their representatives. When the representatives have been chosen and they form the council, they can be called upon at any moment in case of an emergency or otherwise.

Sir J. REMNANT: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman have the words in the Clause, "where the matter is certified by the Secretary of State to be one of urgency"?

Mr. SHORTT: The reason is, that I cannot for the life of me imagine any case of emergency which would affect the question of drawing up Regulations. Therefore I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Abolition of Limits on Police Rates.)

So much of Section twenty-three of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, as limits the annual sum to be provided for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police, and so much of Section one-hundred and ninety-seven of the Municipal Cor-
porations Act, 1882, as limits the amount of the watch rate, and so much of any local Act as limits any rate which may be raised for the purposes of the police, shall cease to have effect.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, after "1829" ["Police Act, 1829"], to insert the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment. This is simply to ensure that the provisions of the Act of 1829 in so far as they have been amended shall have force.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 7.—(Calculation of Amount Payable out of Exchequer Contribution on Account of Police.)

(1) The amounts payable or transferable by a county council under Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-four of the Local Government Act, 1888, on account of police in respect of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty, or any subsequent year shall, instead of being calculated in manner provided in paragraphs (i) and (j) of that Sub-section, be the amounts payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and accordingly those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the words "during the preceding year." in both places where they occur, there were substituted the words "during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen," and Section twenty-five of the same Act shall apply with the necessary consequential modifications.

(2)This Section shall be construed as one with the Local Government Act, 1888, and shall apply to county borough councils in like manner as it applies to county councils.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: I beg to move to leave out the words
be the amounts payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and accordingly those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the words 'during the preceding year,' in both places where they occur, there were substituted the words 'during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen,' and Section twenty-five of the same Act shall apply with the necessary consequential modifications,
and to insert instead thereof the words
be equal to the amount so paid or transferred from the Exchequer Contribution Account of each county or county borough for the financial year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
This is only a drafting Amendment. The Home Secretary is, no doubt, aware that the financial year comes at different dates, and, if this Amendment is not accepted, we shall not get the benefit for the year 1919.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I should like to be satisfied that this Amendment does not constitute an additional charge. Under the Clause I understand that the State make a contribution towards the expenses of the local authorities, calculated for the year ending 31st March, 1915. If this Amendment is carried, and the payment is made for an earlier period, to 31st March, 1914, that would be an extra charge, and the Amendment would be out of order.

Mr. SHORTT: I think it probably would be a charge. If my hon. Friend will look at the two Amendments standing in my name, he will see that the same thing is done, except that it remains 1915 instead of 1914, and if he would withdraw his Amendment and support mine, it would meet all that he wants. Another point may have escaped his notice. If it is to toe the actual amount paid, it may not meet the full amount. There may be cases where the payment may have been smaller owing to deficiencies and so on. The full amount provides that each authority will get what is prescribed under the Act, and I think the full amount, which I propose in my Amendment, would be best. Then the word "fifteen" obviates the necessity of discussing the other point as to whether or not a charge is imposed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the Amendment does impose a charge, I must rule it out of order.

Amendments made: After the word "the" ["the amounts payable"], insert the word "full."

Leave out the words
and accordingly those paragraphs shall have effect as if for the words 'during the proceeding year,' in both places where they occur, there were substituted the words 'during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen,' and Section twenty-five of the same Act shall apply with the necessary consequential smodifications."—[Mr. Shortt.]

CLAUSE 11.— (Application to Scotland.)

(3)As from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, pensions, gratuities, and allowances which are required by the Police (Scotland) Act, 18S0, to be calculated according to the average annual amount of pay received by a constable for the three years next before the date of his retirement or death shall, instead of being so calculated (except where the con-stable at the date of his retirement or death holds a rank to which he has been promoted within the said three years), be calculated according to the amount of his annual pay at the date of his retirement or death."

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert the words
so, however, that the pension shall not be less than if the constable had continued in his former rank.
This merely carries out what I explained when I moved the new Clause earlier today to provide that in the case of the man promoted within the next two or three years there shall be no loss of benefit in the matter of pensions or gratuities and allowances.

Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

CONSTITUTION OF POLICE FEDERATION.

1. All members of the police forces of England and Wales below the rank of superintendent shall be members of the Federation, which shall act through branch boards, central conferences, and central committees as is hereinafter provided.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move to leave out the words
all members of the polios forces of England and Wales below the rank of superintendent shall be members of the Federation which,
and to insert instead thereof the words
the Federation shall consist of all members for the time being of the several police forces in England and Wales below the rank of superintendent, and the Federation.
We want to ensure that in so far as this organisation gives benefits to any individual nothing shall be able to prevent his getting those benefits. You cannot force a man to take the benefits of an organisation, but you can ensure that if ho wants those benefits he can have them. That was all that we wished to ensure, and I think that this probably secures that in a less provocative and mandatory form.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be now read the third time.

Mr. CLYNES: I desire to avail myself of this opportunity to repeat our protest against the Bill. Our appreciation of the financial provisions of the Bill is in no way diminished by our hostility to its other provisions. We regret that those financial provisions have not been submitted to us in some measure which would offer less controversial features than the Bill with which we are dealing. I would remind the House of the circumstances out of which the Bill arose, though I do not wish to discuss those circumstances. Like other fathers of families and wage earners, policemen have many grievances
arising out of the increased cost of living, and of incidental circumstances which made life rather difficult for men of low earnings during the course of the War. They did not secure redress by the usual opportunities which we reopen to them. I think that the police force has suffered from an inaccessibility to the higher authorities, especially in great centres of population like London, and other big cities, who have to determine their conditions of service, and I fear that some of these men who were in the very highest positions failed to appreciate the reality of the grievance of men who could not profiteer. They were not like so many men who were employed at munitions and could increase greatly their weekly income by the services which they were able to render during the War. It is true, indeed, of men like policemen as of a very large number of those who are classed as lower middle class, that they were the greatest sufferers from the adverse conditions which arose and spread during the course of the War, and that these conditions confirmed more than ever the fact that the policeman's lot was not a happy one.
They tried in many ways to get redress and failed, and then the idea of a trade union came to them in a most natural way. I have said on previous occasions that the men of the police force constitute a body of servants circumstanced somewhat differently from other people who have to deal with employers of labour. They have-to serve the public in a different manner, and I regret that some means were not devised whereby the advantages of association could have been given to policemen in regard to using collectively at least moral authority, and using the assistance which comes from being able to appoint delegates to see that their grievances should be redressed, while at the same time guarding us against the calamities of a cessation of service on the part of such an indispensable body. I do not want to pursue the topic as to who is most to blame for the failure to come to an agreement. This Bill arises out of those circumstances, but it is a Bill against which we must protest, because it is offered as a remedy against conditions of discontent, and I am quite certain that it will itself arouse as much discontent as it will allay. Earlier to-day I said that the right hon. Gentleman was taking too optimistic a view of the outlook with regard to the
course. which certain policemen took in different parts of London last night. I hope I am mistaken. I do not want to say a single thing which will encourage any spread of disaffection amongst the men or which will in any way make it, difficult to compose the differences which still exist. As I said, I felt that this was an opportune time, not for persevering with this instrument of force by which the Government proposes to compel these men to do something which many of them are unwilling to do, but for withdrawing this proposal and taking other steps for getting these differences composed. I trust that, despite this Bill, the high sense of duty in public service, and the general safeguard of the public well-being which has been the charge of these men individually, will not be forgotten by the force at this moment when their loyalty to the community is being tested. They can, I think, even now turn to the persons in authority who will have the formation of these different branches of the Federation in their keeping with, I hope, some prospect that their grievances in respect of pension, pay, promotion and other matters will be redressed; but I do really feel that in later years, if not now, these grievances that rankle, and this sense of lost freedom, will be a cause of recurring discontent among the force, which has a great reputation for answering to any kind of word of command which those in charge have been able to give them.
The real point which we have reached, as manifest by this Hill, is this, Is the Government to give way or are the men to give way? That is putting it in the crudest form. My view was that the situation was not so highly strained as to make it essential that either should give way. I would have preferred that neither should have claimed a victory over the other, but that there should have been steps taken that would have brought both parties together on lines where reason would decide and not force. I rather gather that the Home Secretary, if he ever had any faith, has lost the faith he had in the officials who happened to be appointed at the head of the Police Union, and he has quoted their disregarded word and bond. Personally, I know little of these men. All I know is that they are the choice of those who selected them, and I think that such as they are they would have been a means to more reasonable approaches if the Home Secretary had chosen to follow that course. Whilst we must submit to this
Third Heading and see this Bill become law, we cannot do so without recording our protest against the course which the Government has taken; but at the same time we express the hope that in the mass the policemen will not be unmindful of that measure of loyalty they have shown, and will use this Federation as far as they are able in order to make it workable, and in order to make it respond to the real grievances which undoubtedly these men feel.

Mr. SHORTT: I should like to express my personal appreciation of the very moderate and kind tone adopted right through the discussion by my right hon. Friend, because apparently—I think it is due to some misunderstanding—he does feel that in some way or other this measure is an attack upon trade unionism I can assure him it was not intended to be so, and I am convinced it is not. I hope his doleful forebodings as to the effect of the provisions of this Bill on the feelings of the police force will not be realised. Personally, I think they are quite ungrounded. I believe the force will accept this measure as one which makes for nothing but the efficiency and the welfare of the force. I can assure him of this, that at any rate while I have anything to do with it, the provisions by which any constable can take his grievances to the highest authority will be carried out in the most generous spirit. I believe the effect of this will be to enable the police to get a force of their own within themselves, conducted by those who would understand all their aspirations and their grievances and fulfil the one and remedy the other. I would remind my right hon. Friend, in regard to the men chosen by the police in the National Union, that they have not even been true to their own members, because, after all, they persuaded the police to join that union, first, under the promise that they would not strike at all, and, secondly, under the promise that they would not strike without a two-thirds majority ballot of their own members. Last night they would not even keep faith with their own members, to say nothing of the police authorities. I hope the House will give this Bill a Third Reading and let it pass into law as quickly as possible.

Sir J. REMNANT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill one or two questions in reference to pensions. I understood from him, in regard to the second Report of the Committee appointed to deal with the con-
ditions of the police, that its recommendations will not require legislation to carry them out.

Mr. SHORTT: That is so.

Sir J. REMNANT: It seems to me that in stating that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of the important recommendations which will be made in that second Report. On this question of pensions, we have in the Bill made provisions for the pensions of the police which have given general satisfaction to the force, and for which we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. But there is a very important body of police pensioners who are affected by this Bill, and whom we would like to see dealt with in the same generous spirit. I refer to the aged pensioners whose pensions were granted many years ago, and whose pensions to-day are totally inadequate to allow the old men and their wives even to live in decency. The other day the right hon. Gentleman was asked to state the number of pensioners in the Metropolis. The figures he gave were, I think, 9,700, and of that total about 550 were pensioners over the age of seventy-five. These pensions were given years ago, and in a great many cases they are below, or certainly do, not exceed, £l per week for a man and his wife to live on. If we cannot bring that problem before the House in the form of legislation, I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman now how he proposes, and whether he proposes, to deal with these cases of hardship?
We are grateful for this Bill. I believe if the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite to certain Clauses was not based on the supposition that trade unions are attacked, they would have appreciated the fact that this force is a citizen force which has to deal with all citizens, and in its history it has had to deal between trade unions and non-trade unions. A trade union which is sought for would be against the whole principle of the police force in this country. I believe that this Bill would have been passed without opposition if hon. Members who objected had been told before that there was no attack on trade unions of the country.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is in persuance of a promise given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in the course of the proceedings in Committee upon the Housing (Ireland) Bill. It is a Bill to amend the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, owing to the altered conditions which exist at the present time. The House is aware that at various times most generous measures have been passed by it for the improvement of the conditions of labourers in rural districts. The result has been that very large numbers of labourers' cottages with small holdings attached to them have been erected in Ireland, to the extent almost of 50,000. They are extremely comfortable dwellings, and the result has been most satisfactory from many points of view. The definition of a labourer under those Acts in force up to the present time has been
any person other than a domestic or menial servant working for hire in a rural district whose average; wages are under half-a-crown per day.
By that provision a person whose wages are under 17s. 6d. per week is the only person eligible for one of those cottages, and as the minimum rate of wages has been raised in some instances considerably over that sum, the result would be to deprive those receiving the increased wages of any right to have a cottage. What we propose to do by this Bill is to extend the definition contained in the Irish Land Act of 1903 so as to include any person working for hire in a rural district other than a domestic or menial servant, and to remove the restriction of half-a-crown and put in no restriction as to the wage. That is the principal Amendment, and I submit that it is a reasonable and just Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: Is it necessary to use the word menial?

Mr. HENRY: I considered that point and the word has been adopted from the earlier Acts. From the legal point of view there is practically no distinction between "domestic" and "menial," and the word, taken as it is from an earlier Act, does not in any way convey any derogatory imputation. It really means concerned in the actual work of a house
and living in the house. The other alteration we propose to make is to extend the Act to
any person not working for lure, but working in a rural district at some trade or handicraft without employing another person except a member of his own family.
This is intended to apply to persons who are really labourers and who are working as carpenters or at some handicraft, and, in order to prevent anyone in a larger way reaping the benefit of the Bill, we propose to limit it to a person who employs no other person except that he may receive assistance from a member of his own family. We also restrict both these provisions to persons who are already not in occupation of more than a, quarter of an acre of land.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I welcome the promptitude with which the Government have realised their promise on this question, and I think the Bill on the whole is a very good Bill. The change in the rate of wages has of course made it necessary. The only provision of the Bill upon which I have some little doubt is that as to the half-acre of land. I do not profess to be acquainted with the conditions in Ireland as well as some of my hon. Friends both on this and the opposite sides, but I fear that this provision may exclude a good many people who are really worthy recipients of this measure for improving housing in Ireland. I do not know that I could fairly ask at this stage to delay the Bill because of this provision, but I would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to seriously and favourably consider an Amendment of this proposal, and if such an Amendment were accepted it could be inserted in another place. With that assurance, I do not see why the Bill should not go through all its stages to-day.

Major O'NEILL: This Bill is, in my opinion, of greater importance than might appear at first instance from merely reading its terms. It does deal with a very large and far-reaching grievance which many of us felt was left open when the Housing Bill for Ireland was being discussed in this House. As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment here, enlarging the scope of the definition of a labourer, is that it enables a large number of people, both in the country districts and more particularly, and I think with greater justification perhaps, in the larger villages and smaller towns, to be provided with
houses whose circumstances were not covered by the Housing-Bill, which applied only to the larger towns. That was one of the points which I raised myself on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, that it did not provide for the building of houses in these larger villages in Ireland, which, of course, as all hon. Members who are familiar with Ireland know, exist throughout the whole country in a way in which they do not exist in England. In Ireland we get villages of from 500 to 1,000 inhabitants, not large enough to have their own town commissioners, but, I am sorry to say, amply large enough to contain within their limits some of the worst housing conditions which it would be possible to see in any part of the United Kingdom. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether this definition of Sub-clause (a) of Clause I, "working for hire," includes a man who is working in a mine or in a mill, or does it merely include a man who has been engaged at a hiring fair as an agricultural labourer? Some of the very worst housing conditions in Ireland are in these larger villages, where you not only get agricultural labourers, but you also get people employed in the industries of the district, whether they be linen mills, as in my part of the country, or whether they be men working at their own work, or possibly men employed in mines, and I do not see why those people employed in these other vocations as working men should not get the benefits of the Labourers Acts as regards their houses. I hope very much that this definition of working for hire will include people such as that.
There are some terrible examples in Ireland of bad housing conditions in towns of this character. Personally, I know many. I can recall at this moment one row of houses in one of these smaller towns which I am sorry to say I have known unaltered and unchanged throughout the whole period of my life. That is a row of houses which lies some 6 ft. below the level of the road. It is open to all the discharge of the gutter of the road which passes beside it when there is a big shower of rain, and not only that, but behind it, and upon a level well above the level of the ground, there runs a mill race right against the very walls, and here you have human people living down in the depths of this pit with the water from the road on one side and the damp from the mill race upon the other, and I am sorry to say the condition of the people
who live there must be one of extreme discomfort, and in wet weather they must be constantly subject to the perpetual drip, drip of water, whether from the front or from behind. I hope this Bill is going to make it impossible for conditions such as that to continue to exist in those smaller towns in Ireland. I do not know what the machinery is exactly, but I hope that there will be, if there is not now, power to condemn in the smaller towns, more drastically and more ruthlessly than has been the case in the past, conditions of living such as those which I have just described. We know how quickly epidemics of illness spread in Ireland. The influenza epidemic last year committed great ravages all over the world, but Ireland certainly had its share, and so long as these conditions in the smaller towns which I have outlined continue to exist, so long as you have houses built in these insanitary and unsuitable conditions and inhabited by human beings, so long will there be epidemics of typhoid and of other diseases throughout the country, such as we all know has been constantly the case in Ireland in the past. Though I feel that the Housing Bill which we discussed a few weeks ago was of great importance and of great benefit to the people in Ireland, and particularly in the larger towns. I feel that this Bill, if it really carries out the objects which I understand it is intended to carry out, will be a Bill which will have an even greater benefit upon a, country which is, after all, primarily an agricultural country and not a country of great towns, than the Housing Bill, which, I hope, will soon become law. Most heartily do I welcome this Bill, and most earnestly do I hope that the results which it will achieve will be results which will redound to the credit of the country and will improve the conditions of the life of the people in Ireland.

Captain C. CRAIG: Until my hon. Friend beside me spoke I had no doubt in my mind as to the meaning of Subsection (a) of Clause 1, but I hope the Attorney-General will make it absolutely clear that that Sub-section does not exclude the large number of miscellaneous persons who are hired in various trades and occupations in small towns in Ireland. I was thinking, for instance, of a small saddler in a village, who employs one assistant, and I take it that that man is included within this Bill. A black-
smith or a blacksmith's assistant, I take it, is also entitled to a holding under this Clause, but I would like the Attorney-General to make that perfectly clear to us before we come to a vote on the Bill. With regard to the proviso at the end of Clause 1, I quite agree with the hon. members opposite that that quarter of an acre ought to be increased to at least half an acre, if not to some greater quantity of land, as the minimum. Just as the Bill has been found to be necessary because of the increase in the price of everything, so I think this limit of a quarter of an acre requires to be raised too. If my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General could give us some sort of assurance that he will endeavour to put this matter right before the Bill becomes law, I need not say that my colleagues and myself will support the Bill. I might also say, as a matter of fact, that we will support the Bill whether he does that or whether he does not.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) in congratulating the Attorney-General on the prompt fulfilment of his pledge. Perhaps I may be permitted at the same time to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Antrim (Major O'Neill) upon his sympathetic and well-informed speech to-day. I sincerely hope the suggestions he has made will have the careful consideration of the Attorney-General. The housing conditions in many of the small towns in Ireland are most deplorable, and the instance mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim is not the only one. There are many towns where similar circumstances exist. There are several points in connection with the Bill to which I should like to call the Attorney-General's attention. In the first place, the funds available for the working of this Bill will be utterly inadequate for dealing with this question on anything like the scale which will be absolutely necessary, and I should like to have an assurance from the Attorney-General that when the present funds are exhausted, as I should think they very soon will be, he will be prepared to bring the strongest possible pressure upon the Treasury to supply further funds for this scheme. The second point which I desire to raise is with reference to the proviso that the Bill shall not apply to any person who is in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre.
Undoubtedly that is going to have the effect of shutting out a great many people from the benefit of the Act—people who, all parties in Ireland think, should have the benefit. I hope, therefore, the Attorney-General will see his way at some later stage of this Bill to substitute a half for a quarter of an acre. Then I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the words "in occupation." That is, of coarse, a phrase which would be construed by a Court of law, and it might be construed as meaning a weekly tenant or an allotment-holder. I notice the Attorney-General shakes his head, but he is not on the Bench yet, and will not have the construing of this. There are a great many worse people there. We should have more confidence in the construction of the words if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were in a position to construe it with authority. He can only give an expression of opinion; and is he quite certain himself that the words "in occupation" would not include a weekly tenant or an allotment-holder? If a man holds on a weekly tenancy, is he not "in occupation" of that house or land according to law; and, if so, would not the effect be to cut out every allotment-holder or smallholder who happened to have more than a quarter of an acre? Then there is the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite as to the meaning of the-words "working for hire." Of course, we understand in Ireland, speaking colloquially, what working for hire" means. It generally means a man or woman engaged at a hiring fair, but this may be construed by a Court of law to mean any-one who had entered, say, for three months' service. Finally, I would like to hear the Attorney-General's view upon the question of the domestic servant residing in a house. Does this apply only to a domestic servant residing in a house? I confess I am not clear as to how the previous Acts have worked on that point, but, if there is any doubt or ambiguity, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should avail himself of this opportunity to clear it up, and to bring within the compass of this Bill every deserving person who can reasonably be brought within its sphere.

Mr. HARBISON: I support this Bill with all my heart, but I would like to say that we all thought when the principal Act, as I may call it—the Housing Act—was going through, that that was pri-
marily an Act for the purpose of bettering the health of the people. That was a very important Act, but I agree with my, hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) that this is an even more important measure. This will apply to a very large section of the rural community. In my own county and the surrounding counties, where there arc small industrial communities, I know from my own knowledge of several villages, varying from 300 to 700 inhabitants, where there are mill workers who are harboured in houses which are not fit for human habitation. I would like a definition from the Attorney-General as to what is meant by a worker for hire. If a worker for hire does not include a mill worker, then, so far as the small industrial communities in the North of Ireland are concerned, this Bill will be a dead letter. As I said, this is primarily a health Bill. In my county, where I happen to be a member of the county council, we have expended very large sums of money in building a sanatorium and staffing it with a most elaborate staff of doctors and nurses, and all that sort of thing. All that money is lost, in my opinion, and, in the opinion of medical men, unless every worker, whether he works in a mill or on a farm, is in a suitable dwelling.
Unfortunately, our country has a preeminence in the disease known as the white scourge, and in the very district in which I live there is one of these small industrial communities where the workers are living in houses not fit for human habitation, and in that particular district we have the unenviable record of having the highest percentage of the disease known as tuberculosis in all Ireland. In my opinion it is to remedy an evil like that that this Bill is required. As I said, I would like to get a definition of what "working for hire" means. With regard to the proviso if the words "in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre" are allowed to stand, there is no doubt whatever that thousands of men throughout Ireland who are at present living in unsuitable dwellings will be shut out. I am speaking now principally of small farm labourers who are living in a house or hovel, and the owner of the land lets out to these men, say, a plot for potatoes. In the great bulk of cases the plot will be over a quarter of an acre, so that this Section will shut that out. I hope, therefore, before this Bill is allowed to go through, we shall have a definition given
of what really "working for hire" means. If this Bill passes through this House, as I think it will, without any shadow of a shade of doubt upon the face of it as to what working for hire means, I believe, with my hon. Friends on the other side, that one of the most beneficent pieces of legislation ever passed for our country will have been accomplished.

Mr. MOLES: I join in the general chorus of gratification at the fact that the Chief Secretary has thus early redeemed the pledge made to us in Committee on the Irish Housing Bill. I rise also to remind my hon. and learned Friend as to what was the intention of the Committee when that pledge was given. We pointed out to him that the Bill we were then considering covered all the members of a given class of the community who lived in towns, and that the Agricultural Labourers' Act, until the period of the War, covered all the agricultural labourers, but that there was a large and no less deserving body of the public who occupied a position between these two extremes. We specially desired that these people, who have as much right as either the agricultural labourer or the industrial artisan, should be furnished with the same means of betterment. I am not sufficient of a lawyer— indeed, I am not a lawyer, and perhaps that is some further reason for gratification—but I should desire a distinct assurance from my hon. and learned Friend that what was the clear intention in Committee, and the clear undertaking of the Chief Secretary, is given the fullest effect to in this Bill. I wish also to associate myself with the request for more light in respect of two matters of supreme importance in definition. What is meant by "working for hire"? The ordinary lay mind in Ireland takes this to mean the agricultural labourer who, every three or four months, it may be, comes into an. open hiring market. But this may have one meaning in our mind and quite a different meaning in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not desire that these workers should be left high and dry as between the popular opinion on one side and the strictly legal meaning on the other. The point also has been raised with respect to the restriction imposed as to the quarter of an acre of land; it is one of very great moment. Enormous use has been made in Ireland of the allotment system. A great many
people are actually in occupation to-day of labourers' cottages who hold one or more of these plots. I know scores of cases where three such plots are held by one man. In any such case of that kind that might arise in the future, if this text is to be rigidly interpreted, it must preclude from the benefits many people who are raising food supplies for their own wants in the cheapest possible way. I do not conceive that the hon. and learned Gentleman could have any sympathy with a piece of legislation which would impose restrictions of this kind upon these people.

Mr. DONNELLY: I desire to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Mid-Antrim. This is a Bill which is much more important than it appears when one sees what is contained in its twenty lines. We must remember, when discussing this particular measure, that it applies to between 2,000 and 3,000 small villages and towns in Ireland which have hitherto been untouched in housing legislation. So far the agricultural labourer pure and simple has been fairly dealt with. Recently there has passed through this House a Housing Bill which we all hope to see deal reasonably with the urban workers. But, so far as this Bill is concerned, I fear that the sum of money at our command will not enable us to deal in that effectual way with the labourers and workmen of the smaller towns and villages of Ireland. I suggest to the Attorney-General that he might by agreement accept an Amendment in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), where it states "any person (other than a domestic or menial servant) working for hire in a rural district shall.…
In Ireland there is a custom where manual workers come to the house of their employer and work there during the day, and then reside at their own homes at night. The suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should add
other than a domestic or menial servant residing on the premises of his employer.
I think if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to accept that Amendment he would satisfy a considerable number of workers who are really manual workers but who do not reside on the premises of the employer. The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that hunt servants have been found to be legal servants, and so have carpenters. I trust the Amendment will be drafted to paragraph (b), where the words are
another person except a member of his own family,
I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that instead of these words the words should be
any person except of his own family.
May I take it the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that?

Mr. HENRY: Yes.

Mr. DONNELLY: I also wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. Member on the other side as well as my colleagues that the question of an acre should certainly go. It will work an injustice if the Bill stands as at the present (time in respect to many residents in the small villages of Ireland who have inferior houses and cottage houses to which are attached a plot of ground of more than a rood. I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he agrees to that suggestion, coming as it does from all parts of the House, that the Bill will be of more benefit. I, however, have no doubt in my own mind that until we have much larger funds at our disposal the housing problem in the small towns and villages of Ireland will remove a pressing and urgent problem.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: I entirely agree with what has been said by hon. Members in regard to this measure. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was the distinguished Irishman who presided over the Committee which considered this Bill, and he acquitted himself with such success that there was not a single Division, and he steered his barque so skilfully that we got through this Bill without having a Division upon it. I rise to assure the House that on this question, at any rate, we have a united Ireland. This measure is really a complement to the Housing Bill. I consider that owing to the inadequacy of the financial provisions of the Housing Bill this measure is wanted as a complements to it, and if the Attorney-General will meet the points which have been raised in this Debate I am sure this Bill will be a very successful Bill. There are many cases to which the Housing Bill will not be applicable, and having regard to those districts, in many of which the earnings of the poor are very small, it would not be possible, without great loss, for the local authorities to apply the Housing Bill, whereas under this Bill powder is given to the people to purchase their dwellings. I have very great pleasure in supporting the
remarks which have been made complimenting the Attorney-General, the Chief Secretary, and the Lord Lieutenant upon having introduced the Bill, which is very much indeed.

Mr. HENRY: I desire to thank hon. Members for the reception which they have given to this Bill, and I promise to give sympathetic consideration to the points which have been raised in this Debate. The principle criticism has been in respect of the limitation that the Bill shall not apply to any person who is in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land. I cannot pledge myself at the present moment to alter that limitation, because I have not the statistics of the holdings affected before me, but I think it would be disastrous to put persons who already hold half an acre in the same position as the landless. The benefits of this Bill are intended for the man who has nothing, and I think we ought to hesitate before we let loose upon the attenuated funds now available a large number of people who are already provided for to a certain extent. What I will promise to do is to put the matter before the Local Government Board and other authorities to ascertain exactly what is the position as regards the numbers included by the suggested Amendment, and if this is at all reasonable we will consider the point favourably in another place. I hope hon. Members will accept that statement as regards the other criticisms of the Bill, and they may rest satisfied that the words "working for hire in a rural district" are as wide as they can be.
Originally those words were limited to the Labourers Acts and to agricultural labourers, and the meaning was then extended to include hand-loom weavers, and now it is extended in the widest possible way, and it includes "any person (other than a domestic or menial servant)working for hire." I do not think there will be the slightest difficulty in giving full effect to those words. The point was raised of allowing persons who are in domestic service not residing in their house to come in. I do not apprehend there will be very much difficulty in regard to that point, because the domestic servant in Ireland is nearly always a single woman, and if she is married she has all the benefits which go to her husband, and if she is single I do not see why she would require a cottage and half an acre. The number of men in domestic service in Ireland is extremely
small, and such men as gardeners are generally provided with accommodation by their masters. It is difficult to alter these words without letting in a large number of persons who should not come within the provisions of the Bill. I hope that upon the substantial questions which have been raised that what I have said will satisfy hon. Members; and so far as the other matters are concerned, my only reason for not replying is that I have not before me sufficient information, and I cannot give an undertaking without further consultation.

Mr. HARBISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "holding"? Could the weekly tenant hold this land, because there are a number of people who have already more than an acre?

Mr. HENRY: I think the hon. Member will agree that a. man who is a weekly tenant and desires to get a labourer's cottage would not have much trouble about it, and he would lose nothing by getting: rid of his weekly tenancy. The real difficulty would be that of people in the position of yearly tenants, and I would not be averse to considering the case of those who are now in occupation as yearly tenants.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What about the money?

Mr. HENRY: The hon. Member always keeps the best part until the last. So far as that is concerned there is available under the provisions of this Bill £1,600,000 to meet the expenditure provided under Votes of this House. As regards that point it is not a good thing to ask for a second helping of pudding until you have disposed of the first, but when the amount I have stated is disposed of, the Government will do their best, if it is essential for the proper housing of the working classes, to provide further funds for that purpose.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Henry.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Definition of Agricultural Labourer.)

(1) For the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1918, and this Act, the definition
of the expression "agricultural labourer" in Section ninety-three of the Irish Land Act, 1903, shall be extended so as to include—
(a) any person (other than a domestic or menial servant) working for hire in a rural district whose average wages exceed two shillings and sixpence a day;
(b) any person not working for hire, but working in a rural district at some trade or handicraft without employing another person except a member of his own family: Provided that this Section shall not apply to any person who is in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land exclusive of any plot or garden let to him by the rural district council.

Mr. DONNELLY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "another person," and to insert instead thereof the words "any persons except members."

Mr. HENRY: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Short Title, Construction and Citation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be now read the third time.

Mr. SUGDEN: I must apologise for repeating one or two points that I brought to the notice of the hon. Member who represents the Foreign Office (Mr. Harms-worth) on Monday last, but I did not care to move Amendments to the Bill because the very courteous and splendid way in which the Government have dealt with the question of the supply of cotton in Lancashire led one to believe that the alterations which I am suggesting should be made in another place will be considered with that same courtesy. The amount which is put down to carry out the objects of the Bill is £6,000,000, and in the White Paper which has been issued the Government set out in detail the manner in which the loan is to be applied. The amount of £6,000,000 is exactly double the sum which was estimated for the year 1913–14 in connection with the work of irrigation and
the repayment of certain moneys expended on the railways. I appeal to the judgment of every experienced engineer in the House whether the cost of the work detailed, especially in the Soudan, is not likely to be much more than double. I therefore appealed on Monday last for a very much higher amount to be provided for this purpose. The purpose of the Bill is not only to provide labour and work for our Dependency the Soudan, but that the cotton which is to be grown there shall be early procurable for the Lancashire manufactures. That is the real purpose of the Bill. I therefore suggest an increase from £6,000,000 to not less than £9,500,000, which would be a suitable, acceptable and facile amount to deal with the position. If such a sum is not acceptable, and if the Treasury are not prepared to consider the matter in that light, I would suggest an alteration in the Schedule as to the manner in which the money is to be spent. It is there suggested that nearly £5,000,000 shall be spent for the purpose of irrigating the Gezireh Plain, and there is a second item for the extension of the Soudan Railway system. That work is pretty well completed, and I suggest that the money should be applied to the more important scheme of irrigation and allow the completed railway costs to remain on loan interest. I would also suggest the vital necessity of speeding up this work. Those connected with the cotton trade know perfectly well that during the last hundred years the cotton industry has run in cycles. There have been cycles of from five to six years of good trade, and sometimes cycles of ten years of very bad trade. A cycle of good trade is now commencing, and we have the opportunity of doing business in Lancashire in cotton, but unless there is some speeding up of this work it may be six or eight years before the first 10,000 or 20,000 bales of usable cotton is obtainable.
Therefore I suggest that the Government should, in the way that they supply this money, provide that cither the planter or the Soudan Government, or whoever may have the power of dealing with it, as a necessary condition for obtaining the money, accept definite dates at which the work—whether it be the dam or the irrigable part—shall be completed. The third point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Foreign Office is that when this cotton is grown it shall be of that type and nature which shall be useful
for British markets. There have been great districts in which the cotton grown has been of a type which is only acceptable to an alien Government. The coarse kinds used in Germany have been sometimes supplied by a certain part of the British Dominions, and I want to be assured that the cotton which is to be grown shall be the long-staple Egyptian, and also the rain-grown American species. We want one or the other, or both, and we want it of such a quality as will be useful and acceptable in any part of the British Dominions rather than only acceptable to our competitors.
I want also to be quite assured that we may have facilities for getting the cotton into our own country. I am delighted to notice that a certain amount of money is to be set aside for the purposes of the railway system in the Soudan and in parts of Egypt. I want to be certain that the great shipping difficulties which are now upon us, and which will probably continue for the next two or three years, will be overcome, and that we shall have some power of organisation, either by the Soudan Government or by the Shipping Control—if that is still in existence—to obtain supplies for our own country. May I bring to the notice, both of the Government and of the Foreign Office, the splendid meed of praise which has gone forth from all sections of cotton Lancashire, who realise that at last, even in these difficult times, when money is scarce and dear, the Government are accepting the pledge given by a previous Government five years ago, and also the responsibility attaching thereto, and making it possible for us to compete even with the cheaper labour and still to put our cotton on the market?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I will occupy the attention of the House but a very few moments in dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member. The Bill has been received with great favour in the House, and I therefore do not desire to trespass upon its indulgence by making a further speech. But my hon. Friend has suggested that the Government—it is the Soudan Government which is responsible—shouldhave applied for a larger amount of money. In this matter, of course, we act on the advice of the Soudan Government, and that Government, in its turn, has the very best advice in the world in regard to its
great irrigation schemes. I am informed that this amount of £6,000,000 will be spread over a certain number of years. The Soudan Government will not be able, as I understand, to embark on the whole of this expenditure as and from the passing of this Bill. I have very little doubt that if in the future the Government of the Soudan find it necessary to come to this House for the support of British credit in the flotation of a further loan, such a proposition as that would be received with favour in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government of the Soudan will proceed with all possible dispatch with the further development of their scheme. They are as anxious as we are that cotton cultivation on the largest scale commensurate with the scheme should begin as soon as possible, but the House will not expect, and indeed it is impossible, that any large part of this new area should be in full cultivation for perhaps two or three years from this time. My hon. Friend refers to the type of cotton grown in the Gezireh and Tokar. He may rest assured as a matter of fact that the demands for the long staple—the fine cotton which experiments has proved can be grown in Egypt with success, and in the Soudan as well, especially in view of the fact that the price is so high—will be grown by the Soudan Government, which will devote itself to that kind of cotton, almost if not entirely exclusively.

Mr. SUGDEN: I suggest that even that would not be quite acceptable. There are certain types of American cotton which are essential for Lancashire, and if cotton of one type only were planted that would not suffice. If I may suggest it, the British Cotton Growers' Association has pointed out that rain-grown American cotton could be grown in the Gezireh which would be useful for certain sections in Lancashire. A large portion of Lancashire is fitted up with machinery to deal with American cotton and what we are afraid of is that the very lowest grades of cotton may be grown which are alone fitted for the German market. The American type of rain-grown cotton, which can be produced at Tokar, Khartoum, and also in the Gezireh, should be aimed at.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: This is much too technical a question for me. But there is very little probability of low-grade cotton being grown in this area, if it means a low-grade cotton which sells at cheap prices in
the market. I am wholly uninstructed in the technicalities of the cotton industry, but I will direct the attention of the Government of the Soudan to what my hon. Friend has said. He also refers to the question of shipping facilities. I do not think he need feel any doubt on that point, for even during the War, in circumstances of the greatest difficulty, it was found possible to secure the carrying to this country of very large cotton supplies. With these few remarks I should like to conclude by thanking the House for the cordial and friendly way in which it has received a measure of great Imperial advantage.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES.

Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notice to Quit) Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be now read the third time."— [Sir A. Boscawen.]

Major GLYN: Modifications will have to be inserted into this Bill before it is suitable for the conditions of Scotland. I think it is most important that Scotland should have full advantage of it, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman wil state what modifications are proposed to be put in.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am not in a position to say precisely what modifications may be necessary in the application of this Bill to Scotland. The House is aware that the position is rather different in Scotland in this respect, that whereas the great majority of the tenancies in England and Wales are yearly tenancies, in the case of Scotland the great majority are leases. We do not propose, as was once suggested, to leave Scotland out of the Bill, but the Scottish Office inform me that it may be necessary in another place to put in certain modifications in order to deal with the difficulties that may arise on the termination of long leases in Scotland. I cannot say more at present, except to promise my hon. Friend that the matter
shall be fully considered, and that we have no intention of depriving Scotland in general of the benefits of the Bill.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

INTESTATE MOVEABLE SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The object of this Bill, which is a short measure and has passed through all its stages in another place, is to amend the law with regard to the mother's rights to succession to her intestate child. At common law in Scotland the mother has no right of succession to her intestate child, but under the Intestate Moveable Succession (Scotland) Act, 1855, she has a right to one-third of the moveable estate if the child dies intestate without issue pre-deceased by its father. The hardship involved in that limitation to one-third of the moveable estate has been a matter of complaint, particularly with regard to the estates of deceased soldiers during the course of the War. For example, in many cases there may be a very small sum left and the mother may he the only known relative. Notwithstanding that fact, while one-third is payable to her under the existing law, the remaining two-thirds may have to be held up for a considerable time, in case of claims being made by probably distant relatives upon the husband's side. It has been thought proper that where a person dies intestate without issue and pre-deceased by the father, the surviving mother should have her rights assimilated to those of the father, had he survived. Clause 1 of the Bill is intended to give effect to that view. The rights of the father, to which it is proposed to assimilate the mother's rights, are these: If a person dies intestate without issue his father, if he survives, is entitled to one-half of the moveable estate in virtue of the Intestate Moveable Succession Act, 1855. The other half went to brothers and sisters or their descendants, and if there were no brothers or sisters or descendants, the father is entitled to the whole of the estate. It is proposed under this measure to give the mother precisely the same
rights under Clause 1 as the father at present enjoys. Clause 2 provides that the Bill shall not be retrospective in every particular, but it directs the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry to dispose of any funds in their hands which are undisposed of at the passing of the Bill and which belong to any deceased soldier, sailor, or airman, in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. Unless the Bill were made in that particular retrospective, I do not think that the hardship, of which experience has been felt, would be fully met. Clause 3 repeals the provisions of the Act of 1855 to which I have referred, which impose the limit of one-third upon the rights of the mother. It is now proposed, as I have explained, to extend that to one-half. The remaining Clause is really a formal Clause designed to save the rights of the surviving husband or wife of the intestate, where those rights arise at common law or under the Act of 1855, to which I have referred.

Mr. STURROCK: I desire to give expression to a feeling which I cannot conscientiously say is very widespread among Scottish Members—at least, so far as their presence here would indicate any feeling in the matter. I am sure that the Bill will be welcomed most cordially in all parts of Scotland, where the condition of the law which it is now proposed to amend has been felt as a very severe hardship upon a country where a great deal of sorrow and suffering has been unavoidable during the War, but to which, owing to the state of the law, there has been added financial misfortune in many cases which it is now proposed to remove. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one point in Clause 2. I approach the matter as a layman with some diffidence, because it is mainly a lawyer's point. Clause 2, which is intended to cover the cases of men already dead whoso estates have not been fully distributed, should be made as widely operative as possible in the direction of embracing every class of estate any portion of which may remain in the hands of the authorities. There are cases such as the right hon. Gentleman quoted of a widow who has lost her only son in the War, upon whose education she has probably spent a great deal of money, but she only obtains one-third of the estate while two-thirds may go to distant relatives who may never have seen the son. This is a manifest injustice which even
English laymen will readily grasp. This Bill will be very much appreciated, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can to get it put through its remaining stages, because it is a measure long overdue, and I trust we shall not have to wait for it to be carried into law.

Colonel Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I desire also to welcome this measure. We heard the other day from the Financial Secretary to the War Office that in certain cases where soldiers have died leaving a small balance to their credit that the effect of the present law in Scotland is that one-third of that balance is handed over to the mother, supposing her to be the only near relation alive, while the rest has had to be invested by the War Office for the benefit of some other relations. Apparently that is an accident of Scottish law which ought to be altered as soon as possible. I desire to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock) in welcoming this alteration in the law.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the" Bill."— [Colonel Sanders.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair].

Clause 1 (Mother's Eights in the Succession to an Intestate) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Admiralty, War Office, and Air Council to dispose of Property in Accordance with foregoing Section.)

The provisions of the foregoing Section shall not apply to the estate of any person dying before the passing of this Act,' provided that the Admiralty the Secretary of State for War, and the Air Council shall dispose of any property or funds in their possession at the passing of this Act, bel nging or due to any deceased member of His Majesty's Forces, as if this Act had been in force at the date of death of such member of His Majesty's Forces.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOT LAND (Mr. Morison): I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["and the Air Council shall"], to insert the words "wherever possible." I propose this in order to make it apply, as far as possible retrospectively to the estates of deceased soldiers and sailors. The Clause as it stands does not carry out the application of the Statute quite accu-
rately, because there are many cases in which the Government Departments have already disposed of a portion of the estate to the other relations—that is to say, the two-thirds has in some instances been disposed of, and, of course, it is not possible for the Government Departments to get back any portion of the two-thirds in order to make good the widow's new right to one-half of the estate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "as if this Act had been in force at the date of death of such member of His Majesty's Forces," and insert instead thereof the words
so as to secure the distribution by the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, or the Air Council of the Property of such deceased, whether partly before the passing of this Act or
not, shall be in conformity with the law of intestate succession in Scotland as amended by this Act."—[Mr. Morison.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 (Repeal) and 4 (Interpretation and Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One minute before Four o'clock.